The Portland daily press., 1887-01-25

was IN VIOLATION " Tue rules OF good neigh
of the understanding Of all civilized nations
as to the rights Of foreign ships in their
ports. But the American people knew that
they were 60,0000,000 in number; they knew
they were the richest nation of the earth
they knew they had power, and they would
not humilate themselves and do violence TO
their conscious pride by resorting to little
miserable tricks and outrages by way of re-
taliation. What the committee on foreign
relations sought was that the President Of
the United States should be empowered 10
close American ports against any fisherman
or all fishermen, against any merchant YES
sci or all merchant vessels. The Queen of
Great Britain today had the power TO close
her ports against any of the products of the
whole world if she saw fit. He saw no OBJ
lection to entrusting that power to the Presi-
dent. He belived the President would only
have to take advantage Of this bill and issue
his proclamation that no fish, fresh or salt,
or canned, or smoked, the product of the
Canadian fisheries, shall be landed in any
polt of the United States, and no other ont
rage by this British colony would be heard
of But if these outrages were to continue
and were to result in reciprocity. as had
been the case before, that treaty would again
be abrogated and the outrages would be
again renewed I he bill on the same cub
ject in the House of Representatives went
farther than this BILL 1t gave the President
authority to proclaim absolute enonintercourse
He did not believe the House committee on
foreign affairs would have reported the bill
without knowing whether or not the admin
lstration was in sympathy with it. The SEN
ator from Maryland (Mr. Gorman) had intro
duced resolution ON the same subject some
time ago, and that Senator was known to be
friend Of the administration. The Secre-
tary Oh the treasury, one of the brightest
men in the administration. had lately sent a
communication to the Senate reviewing the
conduct of Canada in this matter, and had
declared it to to be 'simply brutal" The
Secretary of State had used diplomatic lam
guage on the subject, but even he had said
over and over again that the acts of the
canadian authorities were outrages and
that the United States should demand resti-
tuition Mr.. Frye added that the American
minister to England, Mr.. Phelps, had made
an unceptionable clear a complete, and, TO
him, entirely satisfactory statement of the
In it.. He believed the President had at
heart the honor and dignity of the great
republic over which he presided. He be-
heyed the President was in favor of pro-
tecting the rights of every American citizen.
aye, more, he believed he was an honest
man, ana that, If this law was passed. the
power which it would put into his hands
would be used for the protection of Ameri-
lean rights.
Mr.. ingalls, said that one subject which he
had in view had been accomplished. He had
desire TO ascertain, if possible, the purpose
ana intention OF the committee ON foreign re-
iatlons In the proposed legislation. He had
been IN doubt whether it was intended TO
submit to the domain of diplomacy, or
whether 1t was inteuded as declaration to
Great Britain that its course, if pursued,
would result IN war. He understood from
the statement Of the Senator from Maine.
Mr.. Frye. speaking for the committee as he
Qngallsl supposed he did, that If this bill be-
came law it was a declaration to Great
Britain that she would continue these prac-
tees at her peril, and that if they were,per-
sisted IN they must be enforced by war.
Mr.. Edmunds-That does not necessarily
follow.
Mr.. ingalls, said the statements Of facts
made by the Senator from Maine constituted
cdsuS betb under the law of nations. The
continuance OF amicable intercourse under
such circumstances would be impossible.
Mr.; Edmunds asked Mr.. IAgalls whether
Wnether be meant to say that any act which
the people Of the United States might con-
slider violation of treaty was necessarily
cdSus belk.
Mr.. Ingalls-I mean to say that declared.
and ayowed and continued violations of
treaty obligations, or of international law,
are cdSuS belk
Mr.. Edmunds-Any intentional violation
OF treaty may be considered by the
Wronged party cause of war if the nation
that is wronged chooses to resort to that
last reason of kings" but every violation of
the principal of good neighborhood is not
cdsus betH. According to the practice of all
nations that do not wish to shed blood such
violations would be reason for reciprocal
treaty. The measures are intended to bring
the oHending party to sense of the incOn-
venience OF such conduct, but it does not
necessarily follow that every breach Of
treaty is TO be followed by war.
Mr. Ingalls-How about continuous. DELHI
crate, wllful violation Of treaty?
Mr. Edmunds-That is a different thing.
Mr. Ingalls-That is the case.
Mr. Hoar supposed the seizure of a vessel
Of one nation without right by the vessel
oil another nation, was as clear a cdsuS beM
the act was done under pretended (and not
read lawful authority. The wrong which
Canada had done did not consist chiefly in a
scramble for the right of fishing 1t consist
ed OF an attempt on the part Of Canada to
compel the United States to repeal certain
laws OF wholly domestic character.
Mr.. Ingalls-That Purpose does not any
where appear.
Mr.. Hoar-That purpose is manifestly
disclosed by the recital of the report of the
committee.
Mr.. Ingalls-But it nowhere appears by
evidence that there is any such purpose on
the part of Great Britain. l have expressed
my belief that the purpose of this bill is a
to Great Britain that She will
pursue those practices at her peril that thev
will have to stop, and that if they do not
stop we VIII try to, make them stop. |
should ike to know from the Senator from
Vermont (Edmunds) what is the purpose of
this bill. Ii its purpose is to apply Ie1 tall
Onts that does not mean anything: this
thing has got to be settled by treaty or by
war.
!, Nh. Hoar-It can be settled BY stopping
But the trouble is liable to break out again
1t has got to be settled (as far as this bill is
either by diplomacy or by blood.
understood the Senator from Maine to say
that these transactions have proceeded to the
very frontier of amicable solution, and now
the Senator from Vermont says the bin does
not mean war. | agree with the Senator
from Maine, and would like to know what
The Senator from Vermont understands the
bill to mean. Does he want this bill 20 set
tie the trouble, by negotiations or by fight?
Mr.. Edmunds Neither.
Mr.. Ingalls-Then YOU do not want to SET
tle it at all?
Mr.. Edmunds-Th is the Jump of nv
friend out of the frying pan into the sea. So
lar as settling it by negotiation is concerned
The treaty of 1918 is just as clear as it can
be. The treaty says, how American fisher
men are TO be treated in Canadian waters
They are to be allowed SHELTER to be allowed
70 get coal and supplies, and are not be
allowed to catch fish. That is Just as clear as
human language can make it, These regu-
ations which the Canadian authorities have
made, as itappears to the committee and as
think it appear to the Senate, are not in
she way they have been administered fair
execution of the treaty but are plainly ont
side of it. That may be cdsus belH if the
United States choose to consider it such. 1t
may be a case for counteraction legislation
md action on the part of the government
whose citizens are wronged and which would
lead the people committing these wrongs to
consider whether it would be to their inter
est to keep up that kind of thing. This bill
provides that the President of the United
states may, If our vessels are mistreated in
ish and Canadian fishermen shall not
come INTO the waters of the United
States at all. Suppose that he says
80 that is not war. Suppose it continues ten
years the question would be who can stand
t best. | think the people of the United
States can stand it best, and that it will be
found persuasion to the people of Canada to
mitigate somewhat the asperity of their Lam
yuage and conduct. But suppose it does not
have that effect then we have simply got
between the United States
and the British Provinces, and the question
will be who can stand that the longest. /
think there is only one answer to that propo-
sition. So the question here is not a ques-
ton of war, but a question OF cOuntervalling
regulations which all nations have resorted
10 long before the war, and which usually,
never come to war.
Mr.. Hoar-I do not think there will be any
great necessity for any further argument in
support of this bill to convince the minds of
a majority of the Senators of the expediency
Of the measure, but the State which
ic intarocfaI u,